Query No. 31 Subject: Notional interest on deposits received from nominees of employees under a defined benefit plan..[1] 2. During the year 2010-11, as a part of employee welfare measures, the company introduced an ‘Employees’ Family Economic & Social Rehabilitation Scheme’ (‘EFESRS’). The scheme envisages payment of monthly benefits to the legal heirs of deceased employees or disabled separated employees. The benefits under the scheme are paid upon deposit of a prescribed amount (equivalent to gratuity and provident fund to the credit of employee at the time of death/separation) by the beneficiaries with the company. The gratuity and PF dues of the employee are paid to the eligible payee in the first instance and are deposited voluntarily by the beneficiary as deposit under ‘EFESRS’. (The querist has furnished a copy of the said scheme for the perusal of the Committee). 3. As per the scheme, the beneficiary is required to make the deposit under the scheme and such deposit does not carry any interest for the period of the deposit. It is returned to the beneficiary without any interest when the benefits under the scheme cease to become payable on the date of notional retirement of the employee which is governed by clause no. 9 of the Scheme. 4. The deposits received from the beneficiary are accounted under “Other Liabilities” in the books of account. The deposits are not kept in any separate bank account earmarked for the above scheme, but these receipts are subsumed in the current bank account of the company. (Emphasis supplied by the querist.) 5. As per the querist, since the scheme is in the nature of a Defined Benefit Scheme, the liability for benefits payable to legal heirs of the deceased/separated disabled employees, who have opted for the benefits under the scheme, is worked out as per the principles of Accounting Standard (AS) 15 (Revised), ‘Employee Benefits’, issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). The computation of the liability is made by an independent Actuary. (The querist has furnished a copy of the Actuarial Report for computing liability under ‘EFESRS’ as on 31.03.2011 for the perusal of the Committee). At the end of financial year 2010-11, a sum of Rs. 3.13 crore was computed as the liability based on actuarial principles, which was provided for in the books of account. The amount of the liability under the scheme is also disclosed by way of notes to accounts along with other employee benefit schemes (Note no. 8.1.3). (The querist has furnished a copy of Annual Report of the company for the financial year 2010-11 for the perusal of the Committee). The Actuary has stated in its report that no separate disclosures are required for other long-term employee benefits as per paragraph 132 of AS 15 (Revised). 6. As per the querist, since deposits received by the company under the scheme do not meet the criteria of ‘Plan Assets’ under AS 15 (Revised), no cognizance has been taken of any notional interest on such deposits while computing actuarial liability of Rs. 3.13 crore under ‘EFESRS’. 7. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) auditors, while carrying out their review under section 619(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 for the financial year 2010-11, made an observation that the benefit of interest saving accrued to the company on account of interest free deposit of Rs. 2.58 crore retained by the company has not been factored by the Actuary while computing actuarial liability of Rs. 3.13 crore as on 31.03.2011. (The querist has furnished a copy of audit observation for the perusal of the Committee). The auditors made reference to paragraph 103 of the AS 15 (Revised), issued by the ICAI, which is reproduced below:
As per the C&AG auditors, the non-adjustment of return on deposit resulted in overstatement of provision and the fact regarding non-consideration of return on deposit at the time of creating provision was not disclosed in the accounts. 8. The querist is of the view that above parameters of paragraph 103 of AS 15 (Revised) are applicable when the liability for making payment of the defined benefit obligation is reimbursable from a third party, like insurers etc. However, in the company’s case, deposits of Rs. 2.58 crore received from legal heirs of the deceased employees are in no way available to discharge/reimburse the company’s obligation under the scheme. The liability under ‘EFESRS’ is a liability computed on actuarial basis, and, is an additional liability of the company to return the deposits upon expiry of the scheme. The company has not created any fund to service this actuarial liability. The liability under ‘EFESRS’ has a distinct character and any appropriation of notional interest benefit on deposits for mitigating the company’s liability under the scheme will not be in accordance with AS 15 (Revised), issued by the ICAI.
Hence, as per the querist, only assets which maintain a legally separate identity from the reporting entity and are available specifically for payment of defined benefit obligation qualify as plan asset. Since neither deposit received from nominees of employees nor notional interest thereon qualifies as plan assets, the notional interest has not been considered for actuarial valuation of liability under ‘EFESRS’. B. Query
10. The querist has sought the opinion of the Expert Advisory Committee on the following issues:
C. Points considered by the Committee 11. The Committee notes that the main issues raised by the querist relate to treatment, if any, required for notional interest savings/income on the interest free deposits received from nominees/legal heirs under ‘EFESRS’ (the ‘Scheme’) as well as adequacy of disclosure. The Committee notes that the latter issue is connected with the classification of the ‘Scheme’ as a defined benefit plan and classification of the benefits under the Scheme as ‘Other long-term employee benefits’. The Committee has, therefore, considered only these issues and has not examined any other issue that may be contained in the Facts of the Case, such as, correctness of the actuarial valuation, classification of deposits received as ‘Other liabilities’, accounting treatment of interest free deposits under AS 30, ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’, issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (in case AS 30 is adopted early), accounting for ‘Social Security Benefit Scheme’ (SSB), etc. The Committee further notes that the querist has stated in paragraph 5 above that liability for benefits “payable to legal heirs of the deceased / separated disabled employees, who have opted for the benefits under the scheme” is worked out as per the principles of Accounting Standard (AS) 15 (Revised), ‘Employee Benefits’”. In this regard, the Committee notes that C&AG auditor’s observations also mention that the provision of Rs.3.13 crore was made in respect of 15 employees who/whose nominees have opted forthe Scheme launched during the year. The Committee also notes that the report of the Actuary mentions that there are only 15 active members of the Scheme as on 31.03.2011. The querist has also referred to deposits received in paragraphs 5, 8, and 10(ii) above. Since the Scheme was introduced during the year 2010-11, it appears that reference to (i) beneficiaries who have opted for the Scheme benefits and (ii) deposits received is in respect of deaths/disabled separations that have occurred on or after the date specified in the Scheme up to 31.03.2011. However, the querist has not raised any issue on treatment of possible liability for employees in service as on 31.03.2011, who (or their legal heirs) may become eligible in future under the Scheme and who may opt for the benefits in future by depositing the prescribed amount and, hence, the Committee has not addressed that issue. Incidentally, the Committee notes that while the Facts of the Case and the copy of the Scheme furnished by the querist mention the name of the Scheme as ‘Employees’ Family Economic & Social Rehabilitation Scheme’ (‘EFESRS’), Note 8.1.3 of Notes to Accounts in the annual report for the year 2010-11, captioned ‘Other Employee Benefit Schemes’, makes reference to ‘Employees’ Family Economic Rehabilitation Scheme (‘EFERS’) and Actuarial Valuation Report makes reference to ‘Employee Family Rehabilitation Scheme’. The Committee presumes that all of them refer to the same Scheme. The Committee also wishes to point out that the opinion expressed hereinafter is purely from accounting point of view and the issue whether the notional interest saving/income on interest free deposits received from beneficiaries should also be one of the factors for the actuarial valuation, should be independently considered by the Actuary and accordingly, it has not been examined by the Committee. 12. The Committee notes the following paragraphs of AS 15, notified under the Companies (Accounting Standards) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’):
13. The Committee notes the following features from the copy of the Scheme furnished by the querist:
14. From the above, the Committee notes that the benefits under the Scheme are defined and the liability of the company is not limited to any fixed contribution. Further, the benefits under the Scheme are payable only on separation due to disability or death of employees, subject to the exercise of option by the beneficiary and deposit of the prescribed amount with the company. Such benefits are given under a separate Scheme and not as a part of any existing post-employment plan. Also, the benefits are payable, at the maximum, upto the notional superannuation of the employee. From the above, the Committee is of the view that the benefits under the Scheme do not meet the definition of short-term employee benefits (reproduced in paragraph 12 above). Further, these are neither post-employment benefits nor termination benefits. Thus, the Committee is of the view that the Scheme is of the nature of a defined benefit plan and the benefits under the Scheme are of the nature of ‘Other long-term employee benefits’. The Committee further notes that though the definitions reproduced in paragraph 12 above use the concept of defined benefit plans in the context of post-employment benefits, this concept is relevant in the context of other long-term employee benefits also, as evident from paragraph 129 of AS 15 reproduced in paragraph 15 below. 15. As regards the measurement of the liability under the Scheme, the Committee notes the following paragraphs of AS 15:
16. From the above, the Committee notes that depending on the circumstances, in the case of ‘other long-term employee benefits’, the benefit should be attributed to the period of service, or a period less than the period of service when further service by the employee will lead to no material amount of further benefits under the plan, other than from further salary increases, or on the occurrence of specific events, such as, long-term disability, as the case may be. In the extant case, the Committee notes that the Scheme was introduced in the year 2010-11 and the Facts of the Case deal with beneficiaries who have opted for the Scheme on death/disabled separation of employees. Accordingly, the Committee has restricted its opinion to such cases only wherein death/ disabled separation of employee has already occurred. In such cases, the Committee presumes that liability has been provided for present value of the expected payments in future up to the expected date of opting out of the Scheme or notional retirement date, whichever is earlier, based on actuarial assumption. Accordingly, in such cases, the question of attributing benefit to future periods does not arise at all. 17. The Committee notes paragraph 130 of AS 15 which reads as below:
The Committee notes that a combined reading of paragraphs 129, 130 and 103 of AS 15 indicates that net expense or income recognised in the statement of profit and loss, inter alia, includes (i) expected return on any plan assets and on any reimbursement rights recognised as an asset, (ii) actuarial gains and losses (which, inter alia, include difference between actual return and expected return on any plan assets and on any reimbursement rights recognised as an asset) and (iii) amount recognised for reimbursement. In the balance sheet, the fair value of the plan assets will be reduced from the present value of the defined benefit obligation whereas the reimbursement right will be recognised as a separate asset. Hence, first of all, it has to be examined whether, for the Facts of the Case, there are any plan assets or reimbursement rights. The Committee notes that the Scheme is wholly unfunded and, as stated by the querist in paragraph 4 above, the deposits received are not kept in any separate bank account earmarked for the scheme, but are subsumed in the current bank account of the company. Further, as stated by the querist in paragraph 8 above, they are not (specifically) available to discharge/reimburse the company’s obligation under the scheme. The Scheme also does not envisage any appropriation of notional interest saving/income for the purpose of discharging /reimbursing the company’s obligation under the Scheme. Hence, the Committee is of the view that the deposits received as well as interest saving, if any, realised and forming part of the company’s bank account do not qualify as plan assets as defined in paragraph 7.13 of AS 15. Consequently, the question of computation of return on plan assets does not arise at all. 18. Further, the Committee examines the question whether the company gets any reimbursement in the form of beneficiary’s obligation to give deposits to opt for the Scheme and interest saving/income on the deposits, so received and, consequently, whether paragraph 103 of AS 15 reproduced in paragraph 7 above is applicable as viewed by C&AG auditors. The Committee notes that while deposit of the prescribed amount is a condition for eligibility of the benefits under the Scheme, the deposits are refundable either on the notional retirement date or even before that date, if the beneficiary desires to opt out of the Scheme before that date (see paragraph 13(vi) above). Thus, the deposit is simply a liability of the company over and above the liability under the Scheme, as rightly contended by the querist in paragraph 8 above. The Committee is also of the view that the expression ‘another party will reimburse some or all of the expenditure’ occurring in paragraph 103 of AS 15 covers situations where the reimbursement is specifically receivable for meeting the cost of providing the benefits under the Scheme and the amount is clearly identifiable. Further, the term ‘another party’ refers to parties like insurers and, generally, the beneficiary of the Scheme cannot be construed as ‘another party’. Consequently, deposits or notional interest saving/income on such deposits are not reimbursements for the purposes of paragraph 103 of AS 15. Therefore, the Committee is of the view that the same should not be considered while determining liability under the Scheme. The question of disclosing, in the accounts, the fact of non-consideration of return on deposit at the time of creating provision, therefore, does not arise. Incidentally, the Committee wishes to mention that a reimbursement right cannot reduce the amount of a provision in the balance sheet, though the amount recognised for the same reduces the expense relating to a defined benefit plan in the statement of profit and loss (see paragraph 17 above). This is because amount payable to the beneficiary is not reduced by the existence of a reimbursement right.
The Committee notes that though the above paragraph 91 of AS 15 is in the context of post-employment benefit plans, paragraph 129 of AS 15 requires, inter alia, application of the same in measuring the liability for other long-term employee benefits. The issue that arises is whether notional interest saving/income on the deposit received can be treated as a ‘contribution’ by the beneficiaries of the Scheme towards the costs of the benefits provided under the Scheme. The Committee is of the view that a contribution should be specifically identifiable and receivable from the beneficiaries for meeting a portion of the cost of the benefits. Further, as per Indian GAAPs, income and expenses are recognised on accrual basis of accounting, i.e., only those events are recognised which have occurred. The Committee notes that in the extant case, the deposits are subsumed in the current bank account of the company. This has the effect of reducing interest expense or, increasing interest income, if the type of the bank account offers interest income on positive balance. Thus, the notional interest saving/income on the balance of such account is not separately identifiable and therefore cannot be considered to be a contribution by the beneficiaries. Further, imputed (notional) interest income (or expense) can be recognised in financial statements only if it is required or permitted by an Accounting Standard and then only the question of offsetting the same against any other item arises. Any attempt to impute notional interest income on the deposit received (and to offset the same against employee benefit expense) will result in concurrent increase in notional interest expense, which is not permitted by AS 16, ‘Borrowing Costs’, notified under the ‘Rules’. Under AS 16, only actually ‘incurred’ borrowing costs can be recognised in financial statements. Alternatively, in the latter case (i.e., situation where there is increase in interest income), any attempt to identify the whole or portion of actual interest income with the deposits received is also not permitted because of the fungible nature of money subsumed in the current bank account of the company. Hence, the Committee is of the view that notional interest saving/income on the interest free deposits cannot be considered separately and adjusted /netted off with the provision for measuring the liability under the Scheme. 20. As regards disclosures, the Committee notes that since the benefits under the Scheme are of the type of ‘Other long-term employee benefits’, paragraph 132 of AS 15, reproduced below, is applicable:
Accordingly, the company should consider whether any disclosure is required under other Accounting Standards. D. Opinion 21. On the basis of the above, the Committee is of the following opinion on the issues raised by the querist in paragraph 10 above:
________
[1]Opinion finalised by the Committee on 22.1.2014 and 23.1.2014. |